Jerry

Today, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States. There were no terrorist attacks, mass protests, or UFOs hovering in the skies. The immediate aftermath of the inauguration was marked by sweeping actions, as President Trump signed a mass of executive orders that took the United States of America into a hard right turn and, in some cases, put the whole country into reverse.

One of the most notable executive actions involved immigration and border security. President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, allowing for the deployment of military resources to bolster border protections. He also issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, a move that sparked significant debate and was expected to face intense legal challenges. In an effort to combat organized crime, he designated several international cartels, including the Venezuelan group Tren de Aragua, as terrorist organizations.

In addition to these immigration policies, Trump’s early actions included significant changes to federal definitions of gender and policies promoting diversity. An executive order established a strict binary definition of sex based on reproductive anatomy, effectively rolling back federal recognition of transgender and non-binary individuals. This was paired with another order terminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government, replacing them with a merit-based approach.

Energy and environmental policies also saw immediate changes. President Trump declared a national energy emergency, lifted restrictions on oil and gas exploration, and accelerated infrastructure projects related to fossil fuels. He also signed an order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, reaffirming an “America First” approach to international agreements. These decisions were celebrated by industry leaders while drawing criticism from environmentalists and climate scientists.

Perhaps one of the most controversial moves of the day was the issuance of mass pardons for individuals charged or convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. Approximately 1,500 people received clemency, including high-profile members of groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Supporters hailed this as a necessary act of justice, while critics decried it as undermining accountability for an attack on democratic institutions.

Former President Joe Biden, in his final hours in office, issued a series of preemptive pardons of his own. Among those pardoned were his brother, James Biden, who had been under investigation for influence-peddling, and his son, Hunter Biden. Additionally, he granted clemency to figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley, actions that some interpreted as protective measures against potential retribution by the incoming administration. These decisions were polarizing, with some viewing them as a safeguard for public servants and others as an abuse of power.

Amid these political developments, a moment of cultural controversy emerged involving Elon Musk. During a rally celebrating Trump’s inauguration, Musk made a gesture that some interpreted as a Nazi-like salute. While he later dismissed it as an awkward moment taken out of context, the incident sparked significant public backlash and debate. Advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League weighed in, urging caution in interpreting the gesture but acknowledging the sensitivity of such imagery.

These early actions and events set the tone for what is expected to be a contentious and transformative presidency. For future generations, these moments serve as a reflection of the profound ideological divides and complex political dynamics of this era. They underscore the enduring tension between competing visions for the nation’s future and the ways in which leadership decisions can ripple through history like the tidal waves produced by an asteroid strike.

Inching closer and closer to the year 2025, just a few days before Christmas, and what’s in the news? A bizarre drone frenzy, the media and establishment freaking out because the public is still cheering on the alleged “CEO killer,” and Donald Trump casually suggesting that Canada should become the 51st state. Every time it seems like we’ve hit peak weirdness, reality says, “But wait, there’s more!” — like we’re trapped in some never-ending As Seen on TVinfomercial.

About those drones over New Jersey: Since mid-November, thousands of people have reported seeing them — hovering over critical infrastructure, shadowing Coast Guard vessels, and even dropping glowing objects over suburban neighborhoods. The FAA stepped in with temporary flight restrictions over 22 areas, citing “special security reasons,” but no one seems to have any idea where these drones are coming from or who’s behind them.

Theories are flying as wildly as the drones themselves: espionage, secret government projects, or something else entirely. Meanwhile, frustrated residents have started forming “Sky Watch” groups to monitor and document the activity. Some local officials are even calling for drastic measures, like shooting one down to figure out what’s going on. But so far, no answers — just more anxiety and a fresh batch of conspiracy theories to keep us all guessing.

And then there’s Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old Ivy League grad accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The media and authorities are now calling him a terrorist, even slapping him with charges under a law meant for crimes that terrorize the public or pressure governments. But here’s the twist — Mangione still isn’t being seen as a villain by everyone.

On social media, he’s being treated like a modern-day folk hero. People are trending hashtags like #FreeLuigi, selling merchandise with his face on it, and even hosting look-alike contests. Some are openly cheering for copycat actions, much to the dismay of the government and health insurance companies. But instead of addressing the massive issues in the U.S. healthcare system — the kind of problems that might have driven someone to such extremes — the powers that be are doubling down on condemning Mangione and shaming his supporters.

Let’s be real for a second: nearly 45,000 people die every year in the U.S. because they can’t access proper healthcare. That’s not just a statistic — it’s a tragedy. But instead of fixing the system, they’re focused on punishing one man and ignoring the anger that’s bubbling under the surface. It’s like they’re hoping if they shame everyone enough, we’ll all just go back to pretending everything is fine. Spoiler alert: we won’t.

And, of course, we can’t leave out Trump. His latest move is suggesting to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canada should become the 51st state. Trudeau apparently laughed it off as a joke, but Trump doubled down on Truth Social, claiming Canadians would love to join the U.S. for lower taxes and military protection.

The reaction? All over the place. Ontario Premier Doug Ford cracked a joke about unresolved grudges from the War of 1812, while others aren’t laughing at all — especially since Trump also threatened a 25% tariff on Canadian imports. Trudeau has promised retaliation if that happens, and the result is U.S.-Canada relations feeling like they’re hanging by a thread.

Here’s the thing: whether it’s drones, healthcare chaos, or geopolitical absurdities, our world has reached a level of weird that’s hard to process. It’s like whoever’s running this simulation has been binge reading Kafka.

The tragic and shocking assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has left many grappling with its implications. While no act of violence is ever justifiable, the public reaction to this event — marked by an unusual degree of sympathy for the alleged killer — should give us pause. This is not simply about one man’s terrible actions. It is a window into a festering anger that cannot be ignored.

For decades, Americans have been at the mercy of a healthcare system that always puts profits before people. Stories of denied claims, astronomical out-of-pocket costs, and life-saving treatments deemed “not medically necessary” have become all too familiar. These systemic failures are not just bureaucratic inefficiencies. They are life-and-death decisions that have devastated families, driven people into bankruptcy, and, in some cases, cost lives.

Such policies, driven by profit motives, leave a deep psychological scar. They create a sense of helplessness and rage, particularly for those whose suffering has been dismissed as collateral damage in the pursuit of corporate success. The healthcare industry’s greed is not just an economic problem. It is, arguably, a crime against humanity.

The public’s reaction to this assassination should serve as a wake-up call. When people start to feel that their pain is ignored and their voices unheard, desperation can lead to dangerous outcomes. The alleged shooter, Luigi Mangione, reportedly left behind a manifesto criticizing the healthcare system. This manifesto has resonated with an unsettling number of people. Not because they condone violence, but because they recognize the systemic injustice that likely fueled it.

If this outrage remains unaddressed, we risk more acts of desperation and potentially more violence. The anger is not going away. It is growing, fed by a steady stream of stories about corporate greed, patient suffering, and a healthcare system that increasingly feels rigged against ordinary people.

The real tragedy here is that it shouldn’t take an act of violence to spur conversations about the urgent need for healthcare reform. The insurance industry must confront the role it has played in creating this anger. It must be willing to sacrifice some of its profit margins to prioritize patient care. Transparency, fairness, and empathy need to become central tenets of the industry. Not hollow buzzwords.

If these changes do not occur, the industry will continue to lose the trust of the public, and the kind of anger we’re witnessing will only grow. As a society, we cannot let this cycle of exploitation and outrage continue.

We should not romanticize or justify violence in any form, but neither should we ignore the underlying conditions that contribute to such desperate acts. The assassination of Brian Thompson is a stark reminder of what happens when a system fails its people for too long.

It’s time for a reckoning. The insurance industry must face the reality that unless it commits to meaningful reform, it will only further alienate the public and fuel a dangerous spiral of anger and resentment. What will the new administration do about this? Ignore it, or take actual action?

I’ll be watching with great interest.

As the United States slides into December 2024, public anxieties have shifted from fears of nuclear war to a new controversy: the nominee for FBI Director. Media outlets have portrayed the candidate as a fanatical witch hunter, determined to prosecute anyone who says the 2020 election wasn’t stolen. This has poured gasoline on the fears of authoritarianism, with some envisioning concentration camps and public executions targeting both Democrats and anti-MAGA Republicans.

In other words, there’s a growing dread that the lunatics will indeed soon be running the asylum. These alarmist narratives overshadow calmer voices reassuring the public that constitutional checks and balances remain intact, despite the hysteria.

Within my own expansive yet insular echo chamber, tensions are high, and a heavy cloud of doom hangs in the air. Meanwhile, the opposing echo chamber exudes a smug sense of righteousness and optimism, convinced the United States is poised for a new golden age. This hopeful outlook persists despite reports of infighting among Republicans and murmurs about curbing some of the party’s perceived extremes.

Adding more fuel to the fire, some Republicans are outraged by President Joe Biden’s recent pardon of Hunter Biden, who had been convicted on charges widely regarded as politically motivated. The accusation of corruption flies, despite past tolerance for Trump pardoning members of his own family.

The widening chasm between these two factions has created a society where very few seems willing to meet in the middle. Instead of striving for dialogue or compromise, each side retreats further into its ideological fortress, building walls so high that the opposing perspective becomes unrecognizable. Nuance has all but vanished, replaced by stark caricatures that reduce political opponents to existential threats.

This refusal to engage has bred a culture of mutual contempt and escalating rhetoric. The left views the right as a cabal of authoritarian zealots intent on dismantling democracy, while the right sees the left as a tyrannical force hellbent on suppressing dissent and imposing its vision of moral superiority. Both sides feel besieged, convinced that compromise would be tantamount to surrender.

The result is a social madness, where even minor issues are magnified into battlegrounds of identity and morality. Those who dare to call for reason or reconciliation are dismissed as naïve or, worse, traitors to their own cause. Amid this cacophony, the voices of moderation are drowned out, and the idea of shared goals or common ground seems like a distant relic of a bygone era.

As the divide grows deeper, the question looms: how long can a society persist when its factions no longer see themselves as part of the same whole? The stakes are not just political; they’re existential. If this relentless polarization continues, it’s not just the echo chambers that will collapse inward — it’s the fragile fabric of society itself.

In a turn of events that shouldn’t have surprised me — but somehow still did — all charges have been dropped against Donald Trump. Legal experts had expected the prosecution to simply be put on hold for four years, operating on the assumption, perhaps, that Trump couldn’t pardon himself. But no — apparently, the legal system has thrown up its hands and declared, “We give up.”

So, as it now seems entirely legal to stage an insurrection as long as you’re legally elected afterward, welcome to crazy world. A place where accountability is a suggestion, not a requirement, and reality itself feels like it’s been outsourced to a late-night comedy writer.

Meanwhile, in the corporate wing of crazy world, Walmart has announced it’s scrapping its DEI efforts in the name of… supporting DEI. Because nothing says “diversity, equity, and inclusion” like abandoning programs designed to promote them. Who needs action when you can simply redefine words until they mean nothing?

Let’s pause for a moment and ask: What are the long-term consequences of these trends? When accountability becomes negotiable, the rule of law starts to resemble a suggestion box — easy to ignore and even easier to manipulate. If elected officials can act with impunity and corporations can greenwash their way out of responsibility, how can anyone trust the systems that are supposed to hold power in check?

It sets a dangerous precedent. The message is clear: consequences only apply to those who lack the power to avoid them. For politicians, this means the playbook has been rewritten. Why bother avoiding corruption or scandal when you can simply double down, claim victory, and wait for the public to move on? For corporations, the game is even simpler: slap a trendy buzzword on your PR campaign, do the opposite, and let the news cycle do the rest.

The implications go beyond politics and business — they erode the social contract. If those at the top can rewrite the rules at will, why should anyone else bother following them? When accountability collapses at the highest levels, it trickles down, breeding cynicism and apathy. Why believe in the idea of justice if it’s only available to those who can afford it? Why engage with a system that seems designed to mock your values?

And what about language itself? When words like “accountability” and “diversity” are twisted into marketing tools or hollow excuses, we risk losing the ability to communicate meaningfully. If anything can mean anything, how do we agree on what’s real? Without shared definitions, society becomes unmoored, drifting into a post-truth abyss where power determines reality, and reality becomes a matter of spin.

In crazy world, up is down, wrong is right, and hypocrisy isn’t just a feature — it’s the foundation. It’s a place where insurrections are “alternative inaugurations,” and cutting DEI programs becomes “enhanced inclusion initiatives.” A place where the rules don’t matter, so long as you play the game loud enough and long enough.

The question is: How long can we survive in a world where truth is whatever you can convince people it is? And more importantly — what happens when no one even bothers to pretend anymore?

If you believe the mainstream media (I don’t), 51% of the USA adores our duly elected President, while the other 49% wish one of the two failed assassination attempts had been successful.

I see this seething hatred of Trump online, and I see it in the media. Because I exist in an echo chamber, the only time I see praise and adoration for our new President is in clips shared by his detractors as examples of how stupid Trump supporters are.

I can’t help but wonder if this snide, superior attitude on the left is exactly what drove people toward the right. A Newsweek article published on November 9, 2024 claims that those who supported Obama are now the ones supporting Trump.

Do I believe that? I don’t know! I don’t know what to believe anymore. I now think it’s just as likely we’re in a simulation run by the aliens we keep seeing in those leaked UFO videos, and they’re trolling* us for their amusement.

*In the context of simulated worlds, “griefing” is the proper term.

The new administration’s team lineup appears to be finalized, giving us a clear picture of who will be running the show for the next four years. Meanwhile, reports suggest that “the Republicans” are unhappy with some, if not all, of the selections. On the left, many of these choices are dismissed as part of what critics are calling a clown show.

But are they clowns, really? Or is this just how they’re being portrayed by a clearly biased news media? The right doesn’t have a monopoly on radical bias, and again, I think this over-the-top bias had a major effect on how the vote skewed right. People no longer trust the news media and so assume it’s all lies.

I don’t blame them. I don’t trust mainstream media either. They don’t care about truth; they care about advertising dollars. This has always been the case, but it’s far worse now due to increased competition in the media. Fearmongering has become the go-to strategy for capturing attention. By keeping people angry, divided, and scared, the media ensures consistent viewership, driving up ad revenue.

The politicians are all too willing to help, especially those on the right, because without division, they generally lose. Both the right- and left-leaning media are incentivized to keep the division intact, no matter what they say about wanting to help “bring everyone together.”

They all lose money on slow news days.

Speaking of which, as I write this, the news media is stoking the fear of impending nuclear war, so much so I saw an article with a map of the USA purportedly showing the best places to move if you want to be away from all the atomic blasts. You know, because those annoying mushroom clouds are bad for the local real estate markets.

Side note: I live well within the blast zone of one of the major targets. If nuclear war breaks out, I’ll have nothing to worry about because I will be vaporized. All my problems gone in a flash.

So along with the rest of the frightened, angry, disappointed people in my echo chamber, I fear what is going to happen as we move deeper into this dystopia. Then again, I also find myself morbidly curious. How bad will it get, really? Can it match the wildest fears of the supposed 49% whose candidate didn’t win? Or is this all just hysteria?

I’ve stocked up on emergency food rations, just in case.

While going through my old DOS-based word processor files from the 1980s, created on my very first computer (an IBM PCjr), I stumbled upon notes for a dystopian science fiction story I called Americana 2025. Set 40 years in the (then) future, it was to be about rebels battling for freedom against a corrupt, fascist, corporate-controlled dystopian U.S. government. It was your basic run-of-the-mill mid-1980s cyberpunk stuff, which is why I ended up never writing it. I had, in fact, completely forgotten about it.

That was until a few weeks ago, when I converted that old WordPerfect 4.1 document into something I could read in a modern app.

Stumbling upon it, I sat there in front of my computer, feeling a bit stunned. The story idea and plot notes I described were close enough to our present reality that they gave me chills.

This, I thought, is no longer fiction. It’s reality. And staring at the title, I decided I had to write this now-true story as a journal. This had to be a firsthand look at history as it happens, told personally through commentary on daily headlines and interviews about how these coming changes to American society affect people — not celebrities, not the rich who can afford to escape, but the common person who will be the most affected by what is about to happen.

I want to find what the actual reality is, beyond the anger, the fearmongering, the division, the shock, the jubilation of the MAGA supporters. What is actually happening, who is it affecting, and is it as bad or good as people hoped or feared? Will Donald Trump, America’s first convicted felon president, enact the Project 2025 plan he claims he knows nothing about, despite it being put together by his own people?

I don’t know what is going to happen. No one does. For those reading this online as a blog, we’re all going to find out together. For those future people reading this in book form, this is a record of what happened as it happened.

Either way, this is history, and I just hope I can do it justice.